Flynn in major trouble for speaking to Russia about sanctions

[djohn2oo8]

[AaronY]

Russia Thread: The Movie
aka Game Over part 52: The Game Overing
Made by Boom Productions in association Ka-Boom Enterprises
Sponsored by denzelwashingtonboomgif.jpeg

Plot summary: A lone Asian screeches autistically... it wasn't supposed to be like this etc.. searches desperately for silver bullets to kill the Hideou Trump Beast. A few join in and console him and feed his delusions. ends in sadness. much much sadness.

Starring: djohn as The Boy Who Cried Wolf
With special guest appearances by: Pavlov and RandomGuy as two other guys who also cried eolf
Produced by: whatever brain condition occurs when you stop taking your schizophrenia meds
Directed by: Louise Mensch
Length: 500 trillion posts
Ratings: DH for Dead Horse and D for Desperate

Genres: political thriller, fantasy, fairy tale, alternate universe fiction

[DarrinS]

AaronY

[djohn2oo8]

AaronY

You keep coming back. It bothers you doesn't it?

[djohn2oo8]

[boutons_deux]

Mueller’s Investigation Just Arrived At The Door Of The Trump Campaign

Wall Street Journal is reporting:

The effort to seek out hackers who were believed to have stolen Mrs. Clinton’s emails, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, was

led by a longtime Republican activist, Peter W. Smith.

In correspondence and conversations with his colleagues,

Mr. Smith portrayed Mr. Flynn as an ally in those efforts and

implied that

other senior Trump campaign officials were coordinating with him,

which they have denied.

He also named Mr. Flynn’s consulting firm and his son in the correspondence and conversations.

Back during the campaign, President Trump held a press conference where he publicly asked Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s servers to find her deleted emails.

“I will tell you this: Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 33,000 emails that are missing. I think you would will probably be rewarded mightily by our press,”

http://verifiedpolitics.com/muellers...rump-campaign/

[boutons_deux]

The Latest Explosive Developments in the Russia Probe Might Have Sealed Trump's Fate

The bipartisan consensus is that the president is in big, big trouble.

As one GOP aide told Politico, “It seems he is just always focused on Russia.”

One might ask whether meeting with Russian emissaries and leaders is a normal function of presidential campaigns. It’s not. Nobody in that business can think of another instance.

In fact, Republican strategist Steve Schmidt — who worked on George W. Bush and John McCain’s presidential bids — had this to say back on Aug. 4 to MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace, also a former GOP strategist who worked on the same campaigns:

We worked on two presidential campaigns at high levels and there weren’t any Russians around.

I don’t think there were Russians around the Obama campaign or the Kerry campaign either.
This campaign had Russians all over the place!

between Trump’s

increasingly manic insistence on discrediting the press,

resisting any sanctions or pushback for Russian meddling, and

demanding the Congress cease exercising its oversight duties

it’s hard to escape the su ion that

he’s getting ever more nervous about something.

He must be going against his lawyers’ advice, since

he is clearly feeding su ions of obstruction of justice, which is one of the charges the special counsel is investigating.

Common sense says that normal people who have nothing to hide don’t act this way.

Of course, nobody ever said Donald Trump was normal

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-pol...ed-trumps-fate

[boutons_deux]

How the Russia Investigation Could Turn on 50-Year-Old Court Case

A former Justice Department prosecutor explores how a 1966 Supreme Court ruling could form the basis for possible future prosecutions.

“Whoever commits an offense against the U.S. or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.” —18 U.S.C. 2

Under the United States federal criminal code,

anyone who violates the country’s federal statutes is subject to prosecution.

Since the emails involving Donald Trump Jr.’s contacts with a Russian government-connected lawyer have been publicized, legal and linguistic experts have been debating whether and who may have been guilty of criminal wrongdoing.

That ruling, U.S. v. Charles E. Lester and Edward Anthony Buccieri, sheds light on the current debate regarding Trump Jr.’s notorious meeting with Russian operatives. The ruling deals with the second section of the federal criminal code noted above—not some exotic or vaguely defined crime.

Collusion is defined as a “secret agreement between two or more persons for a fraudulent or deceitful purpose.”

Conspiracy is defined in legal texts as two or more people agreeing to commit a criminal act when there is an overt act in furtherance of that agreement, not necessarily completion of the crime envisioned

A recent Politico survey of law professors offered a list of crimes that might be prosecuted using certain facts that have already been made public about Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election, including

violations of election and campaign-finance laws;

aiding foreign intelligence activities;

committing cybercrime as defined under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act;

misprision of a felony;

false statements to government officials;

as well as false filings,

wire fraud, and

perjury.

The appellate court ruled that under 18 USC 2 (a law that is still in force today), whoever “aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.” If he “causes an act to be done by him or another,” that would be an offense against the United States. Ignorance of the law cannot be used as a defense in a courtroom.

Could this precedent apply to the acts of Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, and any others regarding their behavior during and after the meeting with the Russians?

If the Russians violated any of the laws Politico noted, might these others have aided and abetted them?

This question is sure to be investigated by Robert Mueller, the special counsel.

The body of law on aiding and abetting is venerable, and the court cited modern applications as well cases dating back centuries.

http://prospect.org/article/how-russ...old-court-case

[Chris]

Court Admits DNC, Wasserman Schultz Rigged Primaries For Hillary

The Washington Post trumpeted the news: "Florida judge dismisses fraud lawsuit against DNC," read the August 25 headline.

“To the extent Plaintiffs wish to air their general grievances with the DNC or its candidate selection process, their redress is through the ballot box, the DNC’s internal workings, or their right of free speech — not through the judiciary,” Judge William Zloch, a Reagan appointee, wrote in his dismissal of the class-action lawsuit. “To the extent Plaintiffs have asserted specific causes of action grounded in specific factual allegations, it is this Court’s emphatic duty to measure Plaintiffs’ pleadings against existing legal standards. Having done so ... the Court finds that the named Plaintiffs have not presented a case that is cognizable in federal court.”

Ah, but, as usual, the Post missed the mark.

The suit was filed in July 2016 by two Florida lawyers, Jared and Elizabeth Beck, who claimed a massive trove of hacked (or leaked) emails showed that the Democratic National Committee and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz had secretly greased the skids for Hillary Clinton and actively worked to defeat her top challenger, Sen. Bernie Sanders.

But here's a fascinating section in the ruling, where the judge flat out says the DNC can — and did — rig its own nomination.

“In evaluating Plaintiffs’ claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations are true — that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor Clinton and sought to propel her ahead of her Democratic opponent,” he wrote.

“The Court thus assumes that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz preferred Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for president over Bernie Sanders or any other Democratic candidate. It assumes that they stockpiled information useful to the Clinton campaign. It assumes that they devoted their resources to assist Clinton in securing the party’s nomination and opposing other Democratic candidates. And it assumes that they engaged in these surrep ious acts while publicly proclaiming they were completely neutral, fair, and impartial. This Order therefore concerns only technical matters of pleading and subject-matter jurisdiction," Zloch wrote.

But that didn't affect the merits of the case as to whether the two lawyers had standing to sue.

“The Court must now decide whether Plaintiffs have suffered a concrete injury particularized to them, or one certainly impending, that is traceable to the DNC and its former chair’s conduct — the keys to entering federal court. The Court holds that they have not.”

But our guess is that the plaintiffs got exactly what they wanted — a ruling by a court that the DNC, led by Wasserman Schultz, stacked the deck in favor of Hillary. While the Post touted it as a win, it was a very clear loss.

An embarrassing one.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/20271/...es-joseph-curl

[Pavlov]

Chris trying so hard to deflect.

[djohn2oo8]

[djohn2oo8]

[djohn2oo8]

[djohn2oo8]

[djohn2oo8]

[djohn2oo8]

[ducks]

none

[ducks]

and if he did it is not illegal
he has business dealings with other countries

[AaronY]

You tell em ducks!

[Chris]

Court Admits DNC, Wasserman Schultz Rigged Primaries For Hillary

The Washington Post trumpeted the news: "Florida judge dismisses fraud lawsuit against DNC," read the August 25 headline.

“To the extent Plaintiffs wish to air their general grievances with the DNC or its candidate selection process, their redress is through the ballot box, the DNC’s internal workings, or their right of free speech — not through the judiciary,” Judge William Zloch, a Reagan appointee, wrote in his dismissal of the class-action lawsuit. “To the extent Plaintiffs have asserted specific causes of action grounded in specific factual allegations, it is this Court’s emphatic duty to measure Plaintiffs’ pleadings against existing legal standards. Having done so ... the Court finds that the named Plaintiffs have not presented a case that is cognizable in federal court.”

Ah, but, as usual, the Post missed the mark.

The suit was filed in July 2016 by two Florida lawyers, Jared and Elizabeth Beck, who claimed a massive trove of hacked (or leaked) emails showed that the Democratic National Committee and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz had secretly greased the skids for Hillary Clinton and actively worked to defeat her top challenger, Sen. Bernie Sanders.

But here's a fascinating section in the ruling, where the judge flat out says the DNC can — and did — rig its own nomination.

“In evaluating Plaintiffs’ claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations are true — that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor Clinton and sought to propel her ahead of her Democratic opponent,” he wrote.

“The Court thus assumes that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz preferred Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for president over Bernie Sanders or any other Democratic candidate. It assumes that they stockpiled information useful to the Clinton campaign. It assumes that they devoted their resources to assist Clinton in securing the party’s nomination and opposing other Democratic candidates. And it assumes that they engaged in these surrep ious acts while publicly proclaiming they were completely neutral, fair, and impartial. This Order therefore concerns only technical matters of pleading and subject-matter jurisdiction," Zloch wrote.

But that didn't affect the merits of the case as to whether the two lawyers had standing to sue.

“The Court must now decide whether Plaintiffs have suffered a concrete injury particularized to them, or one certainly impending, that is traceable to the DNC and its former chair’s conduct — the keys to entering federal court. The Court holds that they have not.”

But our guess is that the plaintiffs got exactly what they wanted — a ruling by a court that the DNC, led by Wasserman Schultz, stacked the deck in favor of Hillary. While the Post touted it as a win, it was a very clear loss.

An embarrassing one.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/20271/...es-joseph-curl

[Reck]

Chris why is that link no longer working? Fake news!

[djohn2oo8]

[djohn2oo8]

Reck

[djohn2oo8]

[djohn2oo8]